The Second Amendment has nothing to do with why the Feds cannot regulate the PEOPLES’ right to bear arms.

It's a good look, don't you think?

     Together we grow freererer everyday!

ONWARD! The  incremental march to steal the Peoples’ freedoms continues everyday!  They have taken your “automatic” weapons. They have taken your right to own “military equipment”. They license and control virtually every type of weapon. Now they are going after the ammo. Obviously without ammo, a gun doesn’t do much good. Specifically they are thinking about banning the public from purchasing what are supposedly “dangerous” military “armor piercing” rounds of 223. Of course the government itself will still be able to buy it to use AGAINST the people if it “needs to”.

It's not so much that they're a juggernaut, it's more a case that the defense really sucks.  If it ain't broke, why fix it.  42 dive left on one.

It’s not so much that they’re a juggernaut, it’s more a case that the Peoples’ defense really sucks. If those in control can just get the ball snapped they can get 5 yards before they even have to block.  Okay, 42 dive left on one.

It really is laughable to me the way the people continue to fall for the same plays over and over by those in charge.  What do I mean “run the same plays”? Simple. They have fooled everyone using game theory once again. They have everyone arguing about a bunch of stuff that is irrelevant. What does militia mean? Is the weapon or ammo used for hunting? Is it a “military” weapon” and on and on. They have put everyone in a box from which there is NO exit.

What is the box they have everyone in? Simple, the analysis of the gun issue does not BEGIN by looking at the SECOND amendment. It does not begin by looking at the Gun Control Acts. It does not begin by looking to Supreme Court opinions about the second amendment or the gun control acts.  The analysis doesn’t ever get that far.

The feds lose at the first step, which is for them to identify where the people, in the constitution, gave them the power to take the PEOPLES guns or ammo. Do you see? THE FEDS HAVE SKIPPED INTENTIONALLY OVER the most fundamental step.

I ask a lot of people to identify where the Feds get their powers and this guy is actually a lot closer than he knows to identifying the REAL basis for the Feds authority.

I ask a lot of people to identify where the Feds get their powers. I’m pretty sure this guy didn’t even understand the question, but he actually got a lot closer to the answer than I thought he would.  The irony was lost on him.

The first step to determine whether ANYTHING the feds are EVER doing is LEGITIMATE is to POINT to a provision in the constitution where the PEOPLE gave the FEDS the power to do whatever it is they are trying to do. That is always always always step one.

So where is the provision IN THE CONSTITUTION that empowers the feds to take your guns and ammo? Please show it to me. It should be in Art. 1 Sect. 8 which ENUMERATES the powers they have been given.  It isn’t THERE.  Here is WHAT IT SAYS THEY CAN DO.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So they are authorized to organize, arm and discipline the militia.  Well bully for them.  Knock yourself out feds.  Are you in the militia? I know I’m not.

There is nothing there about ANY right to regulate what the PEOPLE CHOOSE TO OWN OR POSSESS with their own money. The regulations they are passing have nothing to do with ARMING, ORGANIZING OR DISCIPLINING the MILITIA. NOTHING.   So where is the “authority to limit the peoples’ rights?  NOWHERE.  SO THEY DON’T HAVE THAT RIGHT.  END of analysis.  No 2nd amendment interpretation needed.  Get it?

Unlike our government, I insist on maintaining my high standards.

Unlike our government, I insist on maintaining my high standards.

That is the analysis that is SUPPOSED to be used regarding their right to take away THE PEOPLE’S guns and ammo. They have to find a provision that ALLOWS them to.

Congress is in charge of arming the militia. So?  The feds regulations never have anything even OSTENSIBLY to do with ARMING the militia. Congress is well within its right to “arm” THE MILITIA but they have no right to infringe on the PEOPLE’S RIGHTS to ARM THEMSELVES with whatever they want.  

All of these discussions about self protection and criminals and hunting and “dangerous to law enforcement” are nothing but distractions CREATED by the SUPREME COURT’S opinions that gave power to the feds that they never had.  The way our system of government is SUPPOSED TO WORK is that the feds FIRST have to be able to  point to a provision that empowers the feds to ACT in the manner they propose.  It is not MY OBLIGATION to show WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO. They have to show where they get the power to DO IT.

And that is how they have reset the game.

Apparently they've started teaching some new material since I went to school.  This girl is studying for her con law class.

Apparently they’ve started teaching some new material since I went to law school. This girl is doing some research for her con law class.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT, LIKE ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS, IS JUST A RE-CLARIFICATION OF CERTAIN THINGS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS NEVER GIVEN ANY AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE.

RE-read what I just wrote. Do you see how fundamentally DIFFERENT that is from STARTING with the 2nd amendment or any other amendment? It is CRITICAL to understand the distinction.

Still not convinced?  Let me show you something else that PROVES that MY ANALYSIS is the CORRECT analysis.   

Remember back to your indoctrination class on American History during your mandatory brainwashing? Do you remember what argument was made by the “founding fathers” who were against “adding the bill of rights”?

Yeah, I'd had a few drinks, but I was fine to make a court appearance.

They try and bore you to death in school.  It almost worked on me.  I learned some tricks to  keep my mind occupied.

Come on, you can remember can’t you, or has the fluoride fried your brain? lol The opponents argued that THE BILL OF RIGHTS WERE REDUNDANT!! There was NO NEED to reassert what the feds CAN’T do BECAUSE the feds were only authorized to do the limited things that were specifically set out IN the constitution? Do you SEE?

The great con the feds have collaborated to create over time is that the analysis should somehow START by looking at what the Supreme court, which is just the federal government ITSELF, has dreamed up on a topic instead of looking at the Constitution. As soon as you do that, we the people are screwed. The government has set the parameters and created a FALSE PARADIGM from which to do the analysis. Game theory my friend. 

Once you see the distinction I just made for you, then you see the absurdity of all the arguments that the anti-gun people and the feds make. Because they all focus on the wording of the Supreme court’s opinion’s about the 2nd amendment, which is a straw man. Because the S.Ct. can’t point to anywhere in the constitution that gives the Feds ANY right to pass legislation about the PEOPLES’ arms to BEGIN WITH.

The feds can’t stop THE PEOPLE from having tanks or RPG’s or fighter jets or ANYTHING ELSE because they were not given the authority to regulate those items. That AUTHORITY was left to the states. In fact that is what the 9th and 10th AMENDMENTS were intended to EMPHASIZE.

STILL don’t believe me?  lol.  Okay I will give you this.

It's not easy to access to the archives for the Court. I got close enough to get this pic, but I was denied access again.

It’s not easy to get access to the Supreme Court’s archives for research.  I got close enough to get this pic of the “scholars”, but I was denied access again.

Here is a Supreme court case on “gun control” saying the feds can’t DO IT. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). It is dead on point that the feds can’t limit the peoples’ arms. (if you want more details of this case go to here where I wrote on that.)

The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called…”internal police.” — U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Look at that language. Needless to say this case is not often cited anymore. lol.  Do you see how the court said the same basic thing I just told you.  The regulation of the PEOPLES’ arms was left to the state, i.e. the internal police, not the FEDS.

If the people want to GIVE THE FEDS the right to “infringe” the peoples’ right to bear arms they are welcome to do that. But it was clear, EVEN TO THE SUPREME COURT, that they didn’t give that power to the feds IN THE CONSTITUTION.

IT wasn’t until the 20th Century that the court started “finding” all of these exceptions to the PEOPLES’ rights to keep and bear arms.  But no amount of legal mumbo jumbo in S.Ct. opinions can EVER get around what I JUST SHOWED YOU.  Really, the more they invent on the subject the more they simply damn themselves as a corrupt institution.

Most people know intuitively that something isn't right.  But it's hard to figure it out because of all the disinformation.  Just keep coming back here and I will get you through it.

Most people know intuitively that something isn’t right with it all. But it’s hard to figure it out because of all the disinformation. Keep coming back here and I will get you through it.

Finally, the very idea that a group of people, living in the 18th century in a predominantly agrarian world, who just fought a revolution would then create a centralized government so powerful that it MIGHT be able to take their right away to hunt or protect themselves against criminals, is absurd.  That is NOT what the 2nd amendment is about.

 My friend it isn’t complicated. They want you to believe you have to be some kind of “expert” in the constitution and all of the contradictory Non-linear propaganda that has poured out of the supreme court and appellate courts in order to be able to “understand the constitutional argument”. You don’t. Just think for yourself and look at the facts.

These guys were really quite bright.  But after a couple of hours of talking to them it became clear they weren't getting it.

These guys were surprisingly bright and articulate. But after a couple of hours of talking to them it became clear they weren’t getting it.

The truth is often too radical for most people after a lifetime of “captivity”.  Like a house cat, they just aren’t equipped to live in the world outside the fantasy of “freedom” that the state has created for them. lol.

But regardless of whether they want to accept it or not, what I just showed you is THE TRUTH about the feds rights to regulate THE PEOPLES’ arms.

If what I have said so far is not sufficient to open your eyes to how much of a total distraction all of those detailed arguments are about what the 2nd amendment “allows”, then NOTHING can.  And if you are still unconvinced, or still want to keep arguing inside the game they have created about the velocity or the use of the weapon or anything else, then best of luck to you.

The point of my article is not to “win” cases in front of the supreme court.  Of course the Court will REJECT the argument I have just proved.  They would have to admit that what they have been doing in so many areas is simply lawless.  They would have to come clean and reduce their OWN POWER.  I’m not exactly going out on a limb to say THAT is NOT going to happen.

So?   That doesn’t mean the argument is not true, it just proves my underlying point that the game is RIGGED.  That is the point people need to WAKE UP TO.  As long as the people accept the rules the money power creates, then the people will lose.  Simple as that.  As soon as they wake up and realize that THEY are in charge of themselves, then the people can start to win.  But not before.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren. Take care, live in the light and tell someone about the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

25 thoughts on “The Second Amendment has nothing to do with why the Feds cannot regulate the PEOPLES’ right to bear arms.

  1. Robert Graf

    Actually, the foundation of the control system is to know the people better than they know themselves. Since nobody presently alive has ever known a world in which government did not exist, they take the existence of government for granted. they consider govzilla to be necessary because of all the functions they have taken control of that affect peoples’ lives.

    Reply
  2. Publius

    The Constitution is not a document for governments’ to control the people, but rather the Constitution is a legally binding Iron clad contract for We the People to regulate and control the government.

    The Constitution has many negative laws of what governments’ cannot do to us.

    The judicial’s once appointed and or elected to their respective positions are to act wholly and deistically separate from that of the legislative and executive power of state, one of the courts primary constitutional objectives is to protect the citizen from the over reaches and oppressive acts of the legislative and or executive powers of state. Despite whats written on their pay check the judges work for We the People.

    Oddly I did not think my earlier post to this site was signing up for some kind of membership.
    But I do appreciate the website being open to posting like it is! I Thank You for that.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      lol, yes. great scene. I also love the toll booth in the middle of the desert.

      Slim Pickens says something like, “well damn, somebody’s gonna have to go back and get a shit load of dimes”. enjoy –L

      Reply
    2. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      I am not sure what “membership” you are referring to. I hope you enjoy the site and come back and tell your friends, the only way forward is to open minds to the truth. As to your point on the judiciary. We may have a slight disagreement. Not sure if we do. The judges are one of the heart’s of the system. They have never been a check on the government’s power in any significant way. They pose more as periodic cover to provide plausible deniability. IMHO. enjoy — L

      Reply
  3. NewConstitution

    What about the commerce clause? The gov or corp or whatever you wish uses that as a catch-all. Seems to me they could regulate any sale of ammo across state lines in any way they wish. Not that I agree or that it’s in the spirit or the intent behind the commerce clause, but again it’s been abused that way for a long time. I agree with the authors perspective, and know that the constitution is a limiting document, but there is practically zero ability to prevail in the court system today.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Of course they DO whatever they CHOOSE. They could just as easily “justify it” under the “spending powers” or the “general welfare” clauses. My point is always that they USE the constitution AGAINST us. It does not protect us. If it did we wouldn’t be having the discussion at all. lol. That said, you might want to look at my article on the commerce clause. http://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/?p=1254 There is no limit on what they “can”do so long as the people let them limit themselves. enjoy —L

      Reply
  4. Publius

    Well we have had this argument a few times before and it all started with our fight for our independence and the crown of england was trying to do just that with us back then! Take the arms/weapons and accessories (ammo) from the people so’s to make it easier to subjugate them to his heavy handed authority, this is all well documented history. State governments had tried to pass arms/weapons laws and enforce them uppon the people only to be reversed later and judges and lawyer gotten after for violating a Citizens Constitutional Rights! Big mistake and to this day its unlawful. Our founders sucured this Liberty of the people by giving the Iron clad Constitutional right to arm/weapons and their accessories that go with them. Thus going We the People the abilty to sucure their rights and Liberty threw the end of a gun barrel. As much as some have issues with that today, it is what it is.

    Reply
    1. Eileen K.

      What the Obama Regime is trying to do is totally ILLEGAL. The 2nd Amendment does not, in any way, shape, or form give the Feds any authority to ban weapons and/or ammunition. The amendment states that the people’s Right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. PERIOD. The Rights stated in the Declaration of Independence are DIVINELY GIVEN; and, NO government has the authority to either grant or deny them. These God-given Rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
      Therefore, banning any firearms and/or ammunition is a GROSS VIOLATION of the Right to Life. People have the God-given Right to defend themselves, and NOBODY has the right or authority to take that away.
      Obama has been proven to be an all-out Marxist, if not a Communist; after all, he was mentored by all-out Communists since childhood.

      Reply
    2. Robert Graf

      The founders made no such guarantee. In fact, the founders voted down the inclusion of the bill of rights unanimously during the constitutional convention. The motion for inclusion was put forward by Elbridhe Gerry, seconded by Edmund Randolph. It was the last vote of the convention. That is why the bill of rights had to be enacted by the states as amendments.

      Reply
  5. Refocus

    Here in the USA, in the year 1820, the owners of the government statutorily entitled the lawyers to feed on the population with a supreme court ruling that goes like this: *A wrongfully sued defendant has no recourse upon the frivolous plaintiff because to allow such would tend to deny a poor man his day in court.* The majority opinion was written by John Marshall, appointed by John Adams himself.

    So lets try to answer the question: What is a lawsuit?

    A lawsuit is a premeditated multiple felony crime committed by two lawyers and a judge against an honest working man. It is the textbook definition of RICO. Their strategy is to create such a conundrum for the defendant that he commits suicide. With a vast experience in these matters they bank on the odds that the grieving widow will, with a broken heart throw the contested assets on the floor for them to pick up.

    Remember, the lawyer became a lawyer and the judge, a lawyer, became a judge to make money for themselves. They could not possibly care any less about you. In fact, deep analysis would show that they hate your guts.

    Most cases involve some real estate and it would appear that the title company, the party with the most money, would be the most vulnerable. But the title company has its own representative paid for by the state sitting in the chair of the judge. This came to be when the lawyer decided to go to judge school and applied to the title company for a scholarship. If the owners of the title company approve of the candidate they pay his or her way. Thus the title company is immune from the avarice of the players in the court.

    Remember, in America anyone can sue anyone.

    Since the honest working man has done nothing wrong, that is nothing that is actionable it takes a little creativity on the part of the lawyers to get it started. The first thing they need is a Plaintiff, someone that hates your guts enough to kill you.

    The lies, his perjury, of the plaintiff, the one suing you, carry the weight of concrete facts in the operation of the law. The court is required by law to accept everything he says as true and everything you say as false. That is why you are being sued – you are a liar and a cheat and everything you worked for really belongs to him.

    The actions of the court, that is the lawyers and the judge, are backed up by the full police and military power of the state. The judge can sell your home, business and children and if you speak out in protest about any of it. He/she can throw you into an AIDS and animal infested jail for “contempt”.

    The game is this: the plaintiffs lawyer and your lawyer are colluding to strip you of everything you own. Your adversary, the plaintiff, is the tool the lawyers are using.

    Naïve people have been conditioned by TV to believe that the lawyers and judge are looking for the truth. In reality they are only looking for money.

    The lawyers joke goes like this: You are the one with the money. And you are being raped, lay back and enjoy it. Ha ha ha its so funny.

    The jury? All, each and every one on it, is selected on the basis of: lack of income, lack of business experience, lack of property ownership, whether or not they are being proscribed psycho-tropic drugs which is preferred, and the miserable condition of their abode.

    After two weeks of your lawyer suborning perjury from the plaintiff to make sure the jury understands that you are a very bad guy and never once allowing any evidence in your favor to be admitted… The plaintiff’s lawyer gets to make his closing statement. It is the last thing the jury of morons hears before going into the room to deliberate.

    The closing statement to the jury is over the top. Nothing like it has ever been shown on TV or in any movie. Probably no person reading this has seen it. And no person reading this can believe it is as I describe it… the plaintiff’s lawyer actually channels Satan. He has to because you have done nothing wrong except to have had a childish belief that you would get a fair trial on these false charges.

    He starts off with innuendo telling the jury all about your short comings. And builds until he is jumping up and down screaming at the top of his lungs. He curses you in front of the jury, compares you to murderers and robbers for one hour. If it is a probate case the last thing he tells the jury is that you grabbed your poor old mother by the hair, threw her head back and stuck a loaded gun into her mouth and down into her throat and threatened to kill her in order to force her to sign the deed. His eyes are bugged out and his face a contortion of extreme hatred, his saliva flies about… his body is shaking with anger and rage.

    Then with a great flourish he recovers and coolly remarks that *you have all seen those criminals on Americas Most Wanted and wished that you could do something about it*. Now channeling Satan again, *There he is ! There he is! This is your chance ! Do the right thing and take it away…TAKE IT AWAY.*

    And the jury of morons does exactly what they are told and strips you of everything you own and worked for all your life.

    The Plaintiff’s lawyer makes a closing statement the likes of which has never been shown on TV or dramatized in the movies. It is so shocking that there is no way to actually describe it. And no one who has not seen it can believe it.

    It takes corrupt judges, court reporters, and the very process of jury selection to make it all work, but work it does. Their strategy is to cause the targeted individual, the defendant, such a conundrum that he commits suicide. The crime partners bet that after such a protracted and confusing mess the grieving widow will throw the contested assets on the floor and walk away brokenhearted. The lawyers will then divide up the spoils.

    Your lawyer makes more money by losing than by winning.

    Does anyone remember the Korean dry cleaner family and the judges $60 MILLION pair of pants? The Korean’s legal bill was $300 THOUSAND and the case lasted nine years.

    America is also dying from lawsuit exhaustion.

    Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the situation in present day America for the normal working man is absolutely hopeless.

    Reply
    1. Panthera Tigris Altaicia

      —>Refocus

      Power reveals character, or lack of.

      —->Legalman

      haha great site, just ….stumbled here 😉

      Reply
  6. Nick

    You wrote “Congress is well within its right to “not arm” THE MILITIA with that ammo.” However, that is not consistent with the rule of law; “Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.”
    The congress has the authority to arm Militia, but there is no authority to disarm, or not arm Militia.
    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 reads; “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
    Militia”. It does not allow the congress to ignore, disarm, or disband Militia.
    You make the point of the detail of powers of the congress, but you ignore the fact that Militia was around for about 150 years before the ratification of the Constitution, and that the Founders had the benefit of everyone knowing what exactly Militia was, and therefore explicit instructions were garnered from the existing statutes, and the experience of every able-bodied man required to be part of the Militia.
    You also ignore the fact that the Constitution recognized only one formal institution as that, which has the authority “To execute the Laws of the Union”; Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15. As such it cannot be subject to adverse rules created by congress limiting its power, and affecting its duty to act in defense of the nation; “repel Invasions”.
    How would the Militia “repel Invasions” if it did not have at its disposal “every terrible implement of the soldier”?

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Thank you for the note and for reading. Obviously there is limited space in EVERY article. Let me simply say this. I believe I said they would be well within their rights to “not arm” the militia “WITH” the 223 ammo. That doesn’t speak to whether they would be obligated to arm it in some other equivalent or non-equivalent way.

      As to you other points, again, they require a much greater and more in depth discussion. I would only say that I “IGNORE” many things due to space. lol Regardless, I believe we are on the same side ULTIMATELY, lol so enjoy. –L

      Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Yes. People can only take in the level of truth they are ready to hear. And most of course can hear very little. Glad you enjoyed it my friend. I hope you tell your friends and come back.

      Reply
  7. DDearborn

    Hmmm

    The British were ordered to march Lexington and Concord NOT to seize weapons; rather they were ordered to confiscate/destroy powder and shot. And thus was born a new nation.

    Reply
  8. chip

    Is it not also true that the original 1789 contract hemp paper and ink worshipful document was replaced by another version in1871? Which one itself violates the common law maxim that a deals a deal and the state may not intrude in the private right of de jure sovereign men to be voluntarily bound by other privy contractors “new and improved”dealings [or not]. The snowball has had a long downhill run to bury the unwary in the deception of State corporate power. lol

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well there is a lot of talk about that corporation. I would only say this at this point. My interest leans toward what happened to the original 13th amendment. Of course there are many many layers to the onion of lies that they pawn off as history and law. Thanks for stopping by. I hope you come back and tell your friends. Enjoy. –L

      Reply
      1. ol'Pappy

        Indeed. Just what happened to the original thirteenth amendment? How we can even be entertaining the possibility that a lawfully ratified and enacted amendment to the constitution of the United States of America seems to have somehow disappeared is simply bizarre. If there is any truth to it then are we not, and have we not been, living in an occupied state? And if so, just who are the occupiers?

        Reply
        1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

          I am quite convinced there is more than a little truth to it. If you care to see a long discussion I have linked it. This has links to a lot of pdf docs as well. At some point I may do something on it. But I think it is so big it I would have to break it up into multiples. Enjoy my fellow inmate. http://www.amendment-13.org/

          Reply
  9. GeorgiaCracker

    This was a great post!!! People fall for the semantic argument over and over. Keep up the explanations. It gives me hope that some more will see.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *